Clash Report presents itself as a neutral conflict news aggregator, but it is the English-language division of a Turkish media company with deep ties to the Erdoğan family and Turkish state agencies. The company behind it, Monolog Medya, was a contractor for two branches of the Erdoğan political family — his personal charitable foundation and the flagship festival of his son-in-law Selçuk Bayraktar, Turkey’s drone billionaire. Monolog Medya’s director is a veteran of TRT, Turkey’s state broadcaster.

Subscribe now

Clash Report’s editors are TRT alumni, its only advertiser is a Turkish state defense contractor, and its podcast host promotes Muslim Brotherhood leaders. When Western politicians and journalists share Clash Report, they are amplifying an Erdoğan-adjacent influence operation dressed up as breaking news. To be more specific:

• Clash Report is the name of a prominent English-language news aggregator X account. The account frequently goes viral, with its content shared by U.S. senators, congressmen, prominent influencers, podcasters, and tech figures. Interspersed among its news posts, however, are numerous instances of conspiratorial, antisemitic, and anti-American content.

• A Turkish company called Monolog Medya Bilişim Eğitim Reklam ve Organizasyon Ltd. Şti. runs a Turkish-language news platform called GDH (”Gündeme Dair Haberler” — “News About the Agenda”). Clash Report is GDH’s English-language division. The three are the same operation: one company, one editorial team, two brands in two languages.

• Monolog Medya’s director and owner, Cüneyt Polat, is a former Digital Media Director at Turkey’s state broadcaster TRT. His company lists a client called TÜRGEV — the personal charitable foundation of the Erdoğan family, marking one of two separate Erdoğan family connections — the second, the Bayraktar contracting relationship, is described below.

• Monolog Medya operated backend servers for Teknofest — Turkey’s state-backed technology festival run by Selçuk Bayraktar’s T3 Foundation. Selçuk Bayraktar is Erdoğan’s son-in-law and owner of Baykar, Turkey’s flagship drone manufacturer.

• Clash Report’s Chief Editor is Kamer Kurunç. Among its staff is Mehmet A. Kancı, a TRT Haber Special Reports Coordinator and writer for Anadolu Ajansı (another state-run outlet).

• The Clash Report X account sat dormant for five years, then activated on February 28, 2020 — the night Turkey launched Operation Spring Shield in Syria. By the next day it had 49,200 followers.

Why Clash Report Matters

Spend any time on X following politics and military conflicts, and you’ve undoubtedly encountered Clash Report. Drone footage, conflict maps, breaking strike updates, political developments in America and Europe, all in English, all timestamped within minutes of events. Major Western reporters quote it. Wire services reference it. Politicans retweet it. Even national governments engage with it. The brand presents itself, in its own words, as your source for unbiased, data-driven news and analysis on global conflicts.

Anyone familiar with influence operations will recognize Clash Report for what it really is. After some old-fashioned sleuthing, I’ve identified the company behind it, the people running it, and their ties to the Turkish state media apparatus — including one operator who pushes a Muslim Brotherhood agenda — even as the brand takes deliberate steps to obscure its Turkish origins.

The Company Behind Clash Report

Let’s start with the most important find — the one that closes the loop on who actually owns this operation.

Apple’s App Store maintains a public database of every app developer. When you look up Clash Report’s iOS app by its App Store ID (6748907974), Apple’s own system returns a single legal developer name: MONOLOG MEDYA BİLİŞİM EĞİTİM REKLAM VE ORGANİZASYON LİMİTED ŞİRKETİ — Monolog Media Informatics Education Advertising and Organization Ltd. This is not inferred or guessed. It is a machine-returned field from Apple’s own database.

Share

The same developer record lists not one app, not two, but three: Clash Report, Clash Report Map, and GDH: Haberin Dijital Medyası (”GDH: The Digital Media of the News”). Apple’s metadata also includes a “seller URL” field for the developer account, and that field does not point to clashreport.com. It points to a different website entirely: gdh.digital.

GDH is short for “Gündeme Dair Haberler” — Turkish for “News About the Agenda.” It is a Turkish-language news platform that launched in late 2021. Clash Report is its English-language division. Monolog Medya is the company that runs both. This is the chain: Monolog owns GDH; GDH runs Clash Report. One Turkish limited liability company, two public-facing brands, one editorial operation.

The proof does not stop at Apple’s database. It is sitting in the operation’s own infrastructure.

Examination of GDH’s domain name records — the public technical records that describe how a website is hosted — reveals an internal subdomain called clashreport.gdh.digital. In other words, the operators of GDH set up a server inside their own GDH domain, named it after Clash Report, and run Clash Report’s content through it. Clash Report exists, technically, as a sub-component of gdh.digital. Companies do not configure their infrastructure this way unless one is a part of the other.

The shared technical fingerprints continue:

• Both domains use the same Cloudflare nameservers (milan and wanda.ns.cloudflare.com), meaning they are managed under one Cloudflare account.

• Both websites load images from the same content delivery network bucket, named image-gdh.b-cdn.net. Clash Report’s photos are served from a CDN bucket with “GDH” in its name.

• Historical hosting records show both domains running on the same Istanbul-based hosting provider, TTEN Teknoloji A.Ş., on consecutive IP addresses. Earlier records place Clash Report on Çizgi Telekomünikasyon, also in Istanbul. The operation is hosted out of Istanbul.

There is also direct human evidence that GDH and Clash Report share staff, not just servers. Several editorial team members have user accounts registered on both domains’ content management systems. Email addresses matching Mehmet A. Kancı’s name — mehmet.kanci@clashreport.com and mehmet.kanci@gdh.digital — appear in the platform’s own source code, indicating registered user accounts within both systems. Gayesude Kayışlı, another editorial staffer, similarly appears in both systems. These are the same people, working for the same operation, under two different brand names.

Monolog Medya is a registered Turkish limited liability company with a website at monolog.com.tr and a business directory listing at Cumhuriyet Mah. Kıbrıs Cad. Sakız Sok. 17 D:14, Bahçelievler, İstanbul. It presents itself as a generic digital media and advertising agency. It is, in fact, the company that has been running one of the most widely-cited conflict news accounts on the internet.

Clash Report’s own contact page lists its address at Çobançeşme Mh. Sanayi Cad. No: 44 D-D:21, Bahçelievler, İstanbul. The phone number listed beside the address is +90 (000) 000 00 00 — a placeholder that was never filled in.

Monolog Medya’s registered business address is on a different street in the same Bahçelievler district. In other words, the company has at least two Istanbul addresses associated with its operations.

The Corporate “Shell”

As of April 2026, Monolog Medya’s public-facing business appears dormant. The company’s website at monolog.com.tr serves static content last updated around 2020-2021. The blog contains zero posts — the RSS feed is completely empty. All social media accounts (@monologmedya on X, Facebook, Instagram) have been inactive for six or more years. The company’s listed contact emails — info@monolog.com.tr and contact@monolog.com.tr — return SMTP “550 No Such User” errors, indicating no active mailboxes exist.

Yet the domain is renewed through November 2026, and the corporate entity remains the registered publisher of Clash Report’s iOS app in Apple’s records. This is not a dissolved company — it is a maintained legal shell. The actual operational work simply happens under the GDH brand. Monolog Medya serves as the corporate vehicle for contracts, app store registrations, and legal filings, while GDH and Clash Report handle public-facing operations.

Attempts to reach Monolog Medya for comment via all listed channels were unsuccessful.

The Man Running Monolog: Cüneyt Polat

Monolog Medya did not spring from nowhere. It has an owner, a director, and a face — and that face has a documented history inside Turkey’s government media apparatus that goes well beyond what the Clash Report brand would ever want its Western audience to know.

Turkish corporate registry filings identify Cüneyt Polat as Monolog Medya’s co-founder, primary shareholder, and current sole director, a position he has held on a continuous or near-continuous basis since the company’s founding in November 2014. He is the controlling figure behind the company that runs Clash Report. Monolog Medya’s registration number with the government is 944999. Polat is also publicly identified as the owner of GDH.

I was unable to identify Monolog Medya’s board of directors. However, a Turkish citizen with access to this portal theoretically could do so.

Polat served as TRT Haber Digital Media Director for twelve months, during which he directed the development of new broadcast models for TRT’s digital news platforms. TRT is directly controlled by the Turkish government and has been documented as a vehicle for Turkish state messaging.

Polat attended and reported from a private session hosted by the head of Presidency for Turks Abroad and Related Communities (YTB), a Turkish government agency under direct presidential authority responsible for diaspora relations and soft-power projection abroad. These sessions are not open to the general public. Polat was in the room.

Subscribe now

In December 2025, following the arrest of Habertürk’s editor-in-chief, Polat was publicly reported as the likely incoming editor-in-chief of Habertürk — one of Turkey’s largest cable news networks. Just three months prior, the network was seized by the Turkish government. That such a position was publicly associated with his name is itself significant: it means he is considered sufficiently reliable by the media ownership circles aligned with the government to be handed editorial control of a major national outlet.

To summarize in the meantime: The man behind Monolog Medya, the company that owns Clash Report, is a state media veteran, a trusted figure in the government media ecosystem, and — as you will see detailed below — his company is a contractor for the Erdoğan family’s own foundations.

Monolog Medya’s Ties to the Erdoğan Family

The relationship between Monolog Medya and the Erdoğan political family is not a single data point. It runs through two separate institutions, one pre-dating the other by years. Together they describe a company that is not merely adjacent to the Turkish government — it is stitched into the family’s own institutional fabric.

Connection One: TÜRGEV — The Erdoğan Family Foundation

Monolog Medya’s own public references page — a company’s curated list of clients it chooses to advertise — lists only two outside clients in its entire history. One is something called Kolejiniseç. The other is TÜRGEV.

TÜRGEV is not a generic charity. It was founded by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan himself during his tenure as Istanbul’s mayor in the 1990s, and has been run in close association with his family ever since. Erdoğan’s daughter, Esra Albayrak, sits on its board of directors. His son, Bilal Erdoğan, is a member of the Foundation Assembly. The foundation operates dormitories, education programs, and youth centers across Turkey, and has been awarded government land and tax exemptions through decisions that critics argue required direct Erdoğan family intervention.

TÜRGEV is also not controversy-free. It was named in the December 17, 2013 corruption indictment — Turkey’s largest graft investigation — which alleged that a private courier for an Iranian-Turkish gold trader later sanctioned by the United States, entered the TÜRGEV building carrying bags of cash. The investigation was shut down before charges could be filed; critics allege Erdoğan’s government intervened to kill it.

Monolog Medya lists TÜRGEV as one of its only two clients on its own public references page. For a small Istanbul digital agency, building the web presence of the Erdoğan family’s personal charitable foundation is not a routine commercial transaction. It is an act of institutional proximity. It means the people at Monolog were trusted with the digital face of Erdoğan’s own house.

Connection Two: Bayraktar and Teknofest

The second Erdoğan family connection runs through a different branch of the family, and directly into Turkey’s defense-industrial complex.

Publicly accessible internet certificate records show that Monolog Medya operated a backend server called teknofest-api.monolog.com.tr from February 2022 through November 2024. The certificates were renewed every 90 days, eleven times in a row, over 33 consecutive months. That is sustained, professional infrastructure work — not a one-off project.

Teknofest is Turkey’s largest technology festival, organized by the T3 Foundation (Türkiye Technology Team Foundation) and the Republic of Turkey’s Ministry of Industry and Technology.

The T3 Foundation’s Chairman of the Board of Trustees is Selçuk Bayraktar, who just so happens to also be Erdoğan’s son-in-law, and a billionaire drone manufacturer.

Far from just a simple tech fair, Teknofest operates under direct presidential patronage and is one of the flagship projects of Turkey’s national defense industry drive. And Monolog Medya — the company that operates GDH and Clash Report — was a backend contractor for it for nearly three years.

To be clear about what this means in full: Monolog Medya has documented client relationships with the personal foundation of the Erdoğan family (TÜRGEV, through his daughter Esra) and with the flagship technology festival of Erdoğan’s son-in-law (Teknofest, through Selçuk Bayraktar). These are not the same institution. They are two separate nodes of the Erdoğan political family. The company behind Clash Report is connected to both.

Clash Report’s Advertising Fingerprint

Clash Report’s homepage features a prominent banner ad for Aselsan, the Turkish state defense electronics giant. That is the only display advertiser visible on the site.

Aselsan is 74.20% owned by the Turkish Armed Forces Foundation, with the rest trading on the Istanbul stock exchange. It was founded in 1975 as a state vehicle for Turkish military electronics. Since 2017, the Turkish Armed Forces Foundation’s board has been chaired by the President of Turkey.

The People Behind the Clash Report Brand

Up until late April 2026, Clash Report did not publicly present any staff, editor-in-chief, founder, managing director, or publisher. Even now, the site has no masthead of any kind. But once I exposed how Clash Report likely used bot swarms to amass its large following on X, its editor revealed himself.

Kamer Kurunç — Chief Editor

Clash Report’s own YouTube channel names Kamer Kurunç by title. A video published on April 28, 2026 carries this description: “Clash Point host Isaac Eshetu and Chief Editor Kamer Kurunc sit down with Timothy Ash.”

Kurunç operates on X under the handle @kamerknc with the display name “Turkish Market.” His profile describes a focus on “Dış Haber / OSINT / U.S. / MENA / Turkey / National Security / Crowdsourcing.” He has 96,000+ followers, nearly 80,000 tweets, and links to a Telegram channel at t.me/realTurkishMarket.

Mehmet A. Kancı — State Media Columnist

Mehmet A. Kancı is part of the editorial staff of Clash Report. His bio, published on TRT Haber’s own author page, explains that he began at a private broadcaster in 1994, moved to TRT — the Turkish state broadcaster with questionable ties — and writes foreign-policy analyses for Anadolu Ajansı, another Turkish state news agency. Both are direct instruments of the Erdoğan government’s communications infrastructure. His verified title at TRT is Special Reports Coordinator, also referred to as Main News Director in TRT's own published materials. As of April 2026, Kancı still works as an editor for TRT.

Crucially, Kancı is not just an outside contributor publishing op-eds. Email addresses matching Kancı’s name — mehmet.kanci@clashreport.com and mehmet.kanci@gdh.digital — appear in the platform’s own source code, indicating registered user accounts within both content management systems. By all appearances, Kancı appears to be simultaneously working for Clash Report and Turkish state media.

It’s in Kancı’s personal writing that his true feelings are shared. He’s written that Israel has a “policy of killing children,” that U.S. President Donald Trump has “lost touch with reality,” that “Netanyahu and the Zionist lobby” have “blackmailed” Trump, that “Jewish lobbies that have bought 90% of members across both chambers of Congress,” and other similarly antisemitic, anti-American, conspiratorial nonsense.

Levent Kemal — Former Anadolu Agency Syria Correspondent

Levent Kemal is a freelance journalist based in Istanbul who confirmed his own Clash Report affiliation in a February 2026 tweet: “For the curious, I’m attaching below the work I did at Clash Report almost a year ago.” His Middle East Eye author bio confirms he was Syria correspondent for Anadolu — the same Turkish state news agency where Kancı publishes.

Isaac Eshetu — Clash Point Host, Islamist Content Network

Isaac Eshetu — full name Isaac Eshetu Aragaw — is the on-camera host of Clash Report’s video podcast, Clash Point. His LinkedIn identifies him as an Ethiopian journalist based in Istanbul, educated at Fatih Sultan Mehmet Vakıf University — a Turkish state-foundation university run under the Republic of Turkey’s Directorate General of Foundations.

On his personal X account @isaacEthio, Eshetu posts Islamic scholars and commentators affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood alongside the hashtag #UmmahQuotes. Two of the Muslim Brotherhood leaders he has repeatedly chosen to promote are:

• Dr. Tariq al-Suwaidan, whom Eshetu promoted under the headline “We Will Crush Your Business with Boycott If You Support Apartheid Israel,” is an organizational Brotherhood leader, not simply a sympathizer. He publicly identified himself as “one of the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood” during a lecture in Yemen. Kuwait revoked his citizenship by royal decree in December 2025. In a 2014 sermon directed at Hamas, he urged Palestinian mothers to raise their children “on the hatred of the sons of Zion.” Belgium banned him from entry over antisemitic statements.

• Dr. Azzam Tamimi, whom Eshetu promoted under the headline “America is in Decline! Tyranny Can’t Last Forever!”, is a confirmed Brotherhood figure in Britain. He was a prominent official in the Muslim Association of Britain and co-founded the British Muslim Initiative, both of which are Brotherhood-affiliated organizations. In September 2014 the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood’s own website described him as “a leading member of the Brotherhood in Britain.” He was previously the official spokesperson for the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood. In a 2004 BBC interview, he described becoming a suicide bomber against Israel as “a noble cause... the straight way to pleasing my God.”

These are two of the most prominent confirmed Brotherhood figures in the English-speaking world, and Clash Report’s podcast host is actively and repeatedly amplifying both under a branded content project on his personal account.

There is a further biographical thread worth noting, though it is not yet fully confirmed. CPJ records from 2012–2013 document an Isaac Eshetu who was a copy editor at Ye Muslimoch Guday (”Muslim Affairs”), an Ethiopian Islamic publication whose editors were jailed on counter-terrorism charges. According to ARTICLE 19’s UN submission, “Akemel Negash and Isaac Eshetu, both editors of Muslim Affairs, fled into exile on 31 July 2012.”

The Launch-Day Tweet

The @clashreport handle was registered on X on May 12, 2015. It sat dormant for nearly five years. Its first tweet posted on February 28, 2020.

The day before, Syrian regime airstrikes had hit a Turkish position in Balyun, southern Idlib, killing 33 Turkish soldiers — directly triggering Operation Spring Shield. By the time Clash Report posted its first tweet, Turkish Bayraktar drones were already airborne over Idlib, destroying Syrian armor on a scale the world had never seen from a Turkish platform.

By the following day, as I already exposed earlier, the Clash Report profile amassed 49,200 followers. An account that had never posted a single tweet in nearly five years had the follower count of a mid-tier media brand. No organic growth mechanism explains that number.

You do not register a Twitter handle in 2015, sit on it for half a decade, and then activate it the night your country launches its largest open military operation in a generation, by accident.

Summing All This Up

Clash Report is the English-language division of a Turkish media company called Monolog Medya, whose director is a veteran of Turkish state media and whose client list includes two separate institutions tied to the Erdoğan political family. Its editors and staff are alumni of Turkish state news outlets, its only advertiser is a Turkish state defense contractor, and its podcast host promotes confirmed Muslim Brotherhood leaders.

When American journalists, politicians, or analysts cite Clash Report as a news source, this is what they are citing. Not an OSINT collective. Not citizen journalism. The English-language division of a Turkish-language news brand, run by a company whose owner is a veteran of Turkish state media, whose client roster includes the personal foundation of the Erdoğan family and the flagship festival of Erdoğan’s son-in-law, edited by people trained in Turkish state media, and hosted by someone who promotes confirmed Muslim Brotherhood leaders on his personal feed.

The operators chose, very deliberately, not to put their names on the door.

So I did it for them.

Eitan’s notes:

The following was created using a combination of open-source tools, AI tools, and my own research. Analytical support provided by ThirdLantern (CYBINT/WEBINT)

I asked Monolog Medya, GDH, Isaac Eshetu, Clash Report, and Mehmet Kancı for comment.

None answered.

With the help of my handy dandy Claude AI, I analyzed 48 episodes and 12,614 transcript chunks from Tucker Carlson’s show that aired between January 1st – April 16th, 2026. Across the full period, Israel-related content appeared in 13.7% of all spoken dialogue, showing up in 41 of 48 episodes (85%). Since the start of Operation Epic Fury until today, that figure climbs to 17.0%, appearing in 21 of 22 episodes (95%). Below is an analysis of how that stacks up against other topics.

Share

Full Analysis Period

Israel gets 3.8x more airtime than Trump on Tucker’s show and more than the next six topics combined. This is not a show about America. It’s not a show about the economy, or China, or immigration. Those are filler between the Israel segments.

Since Operation Epic Fury

In the February 28 – April 16 window, two new sub-themes take center stage: Iran (439 chunks, 9.4%) — covered almost entirely as an extension of the Israel story — and Religion/Christianity (416 chunks, 8.9%). The religion spike is not coincidental. Tucker’s central thesis in this period is what he calls “Israelism” — his framing of evangelical Christian support for Israel as America’s de facto state religion.

Combined, Israel and Iran equaled 1,231 chunks, or 26.4% of all spoken words in that window. More than every other topic combined.

What Tucker Actually Says

Tucker’s framing is consistent and worth documenting. His recurring language:

• “Israelism” — his coined term for what he calls the de facto civic religion of the U.S. government: “The religion is Israelism — it’s the support of Israel”

• “The chief foreign policy of the United States” — how he describes defending Israel

• “On behalf of Israel / at the instigation of Israel” — his framing of the Iran war

• “The deal killer” — Israel as the single dividing line in MAGA politics

• “Genocidal” — applied to the Netanyahu government’s actions

• “Israel’s lobby” — AIPAC as a congressional pressure mechanism

He also repeatedly portrays Marjorie Taylor Greene, Thomas Massie, and Pope Leo as Trump targets specifically because of their insufficient support for Israel — arguing their only shared trait is skepticism of the Netanyahu government.

The trajectory is unmistakable. Tucker’s show in 2026 is not a political commentary program that occasionally covers foreign policy. It is, by the numbers, a show about Israel program that occasionally covers other things.

When I published my original piece on Drop Site News in January 2025, I noted that the outlet was seeking its own 501(c)(3) status while employing contributors with apparent documented ties to Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Since then, nothing has changed — except that Drop Site has added another name to its roster that makes the pattern even harder to excuse.

That name is Abdel Qader Sabbah. And the twist is that the Soros-funded Drop Site didn’t stumble onto him before anyone knew who he was. They picked him up after CNN already dropped him.

Share

Abdel Qader Sabbah

In July 2024, HonestReporting published an investigation into Sabbah’s social media history that was damning enough to prompt CNN to announce it would no longer use his material. Drop Site’s response, apparently, was to make him one of their main reporters.

The HonestReporting investigation found that Sabbah had photographed himself alongside US Treasury-sanctioned Hamas leader Mahmoud A-Zahar, captioning the image with a reference to A-Zahar as “commander.” He wore the uniform of the General Training Directorate — a Hamas-run body — and produced promotional video content for it.

In 2014, as discovered by Honest Reporting, he praised as a “hero” Hamas’ suicide bomber Izz A-Din Al-Masri, who had blown himself up in a Jerusalem restaurant in 2001, killing 16 people, including children. Sabbah’s praise came as Israel returned the terrorist’s body to the Palestinian Authority 13 years later.

He also shared a Qassam Brigades propaganda video with green and black heart emojis months before October 7th, and circulated Hamas media censorship guidelines during the 2021 conflict — including instructions not to film rocket launch sites.

CNN’s response, after HonestReporting published its findings, was to acknowledge it had been unaware of Sabbah’s posts, call them “highly offensive,” and cut ties with him. Drop Site apparently reached the opposite conclusion. As of April 2026, Sabbah continues writing for the outlet.

His sympathies haven’t changed either. On December 29, 2025, when Hamas announced the death of its spokesman Abu Obeida, Sabbah posted a tribute — an image of a flag-draped coffin accompanied by the Arabic phrase “إلى رحمة الله ورضوانه” (”To the mercy and pleasure of God”) — a traditional Islamic expression used to honor the deceased, deployed here for a man designated as a terrorist by the United States.

CNN fired him. Drop Site made him one of their main reporters. Then again, this is the same outlet whose co-founder Ryan Grim can look at images of an Al Jazeera journalist training with RPGs in an actual Hamas uniform and wave it off without a second thought.

Now, for those of you in need of a refresher, here’s the rest of the Drop Site gang’s reporters who are either tied to terrorist organizations or who love themselves some terrorism, as I previously exposed:

Hossam Shabat

Drop Site ran articles by the now-deceased Hossam Shabat, confirmed by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to be a Hamas sniper.

Seeing as the IDF has already confirmed Hossam’s Hamas membership, I will not break down my own findings. However, some of Hossam’s glorification of terror can be found on this thread I previously published.

Mujahed al-Saadi

Another Drop Site contributor, Mujahed also writes for Palestine Today TV, which belongs to the Islamic Jihad terrorist organization (as confirmed by the State Department as well).

You can see my full breakdown of Mujahed’s apparently close relationship with Islamic Jihad officials, including the infamous (now deceased) leader Khader Adnan, in this thread I published several months back.

AbuBaker Abed

Despite his baby-face exterior, Abed has expressed support for terrorism, including the October 7^th massacre, expressed antisemitic sentiments, and called for Israel to be “wiped off the map.”

• On X, Abed has posted antisemitic content such as “In Your hands, O Lord, are all matters. O God, bestow Your curse upon the Jews. O God, crush them, burn them, and shake the earth beneath them. O Lord, O Lord, O Lord.”

• On the morning of October 7^th, Abed posted a video of Hamas terrorists – whom he refers to as “freedom fighters” – invading Israel and wrote “glad tidings are spread around Gaza” (archived link here).

• During Operation Epic Fury, he encouraged his followers to violence against Irish pro-Israel activist Rachel Moiselle.

Ahlam Al Nafed al Talouli

Ahlam Al Nafed al Talouli, whom Drop Site acknowledges “was a trusted source, providing detailed reporting, video, and information to Drop Site News and others” before she was killed in January 2025.

• On the morning of October 7^th, Ahlam posted a video of Hamas terrorists invading Israel and wrote “Deployment of Al-Qassam members inside the occupation’s settlements. May God protect them, and may our Lord be with them, O Lord.”

• Ahlam also posted on October 7^th that the scenes from the attack are “something we never imagined even in our best dreams.”

• Other posts in support of October 7^th can be found here and here.

• Additional examples of Ahlam’s support for terrorism and violence can be found here.

While the First Amendment is sacred and nonnegotiable, it does not grant outlets the right to employ individuals with ties to terrorism. Similarly, while people are free to express abhorrent ideas—including pro-terror views—this should not be subsidized by American taxpayers.

For these reasons, the U.S. government should deny Drop Site’s application for 501(c)(3) status and revoke its current fiscal sponsorship through the Social Security Works Education Fund.

Beyond that, Congress and the Department of Justice should open a formal investigation into the outlet’s relationships with US-designated terrorist organizations. An outlet that repeatedly and knowingly platforms individuals tied to Hamas and Islamic Jihad — even after those individuals have been rejected by mainstream outlets on exactly those grounds — warrants scrutiny that goes well beyond a denied tax exemption.

Over the course of Operation Epic Fury, Alexander Dugin — the infamous Russian philosopher widely regarded as the intellectual godfather of Vladimir Putin’s geopolitical worldview — published roughly 60 posts mentioning Tucker Carlson. That’s 1.5 per day, every day from February 28 to April 8, making Carlson one of the most referenced figures in his entire feed.

Share

On March 4, in a burst of posts following the Iran strikes, Dugin published what reads as a political coronation: “Tucker Carlson is absolutely great. Greatest... He is the MAGA. Trump is neocon nothing else. He is over.” And then: “Your Conservative Revolution was hijacked by pedophiles. Rescue it.”

By mid-March: “Tucker Carlson is now so far most important essential political figure in the U.S. Everybody is measured by the agree or disagree with him.”

When the ceasefire came: “Tucker Carlson has won just now the war for the truth and dignity. Absolute winner.”

Then on April 8, Dugin mapped the entire MAGA split onto the German Conservative Revolution of the 1920s: “Trump/Netanyahu/Zionists = Hitler. Tucker Carlson/Candace/Alex Jones = Conservative Revolution.” His framing: Trump hijacked a genuine movement, just as Hitler hijacked the real German conservatives. Tucker is the authentic heir.

The German Conservative Revolutionaries he invokes — Müller van den Bruck, Jünger, Evola — made the philosophical groundwork for what came next, and were then either co-opted or destroyed by it. Whether or not the analogy holds, the embrace is unambiguous.

The Broader Picture

The Tucker fixation doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Over the same 40 days, Dugin generated 2,066 retweets and quote tweets (48 per day). I analyzed these using AI tools. The network he was amplifying tells you exactly who he is trying to stitch together. His top accounts:

• Disinformation peddler Mario Nawfal (87 retweets)

• Constantin von Hoffmeister of Arktos (63)

• Belgian New Right theorist Robert Steuckers (36)

• Moscow-based (?) Jackson Hinkle (25)

• MegaUpload founder Kim Dotcom (21)

• Certifiable Looney Tune Alex Jones (20).

Notable runners-up include @RT_com (16), @DD_Geopolitics (16), @JohnMappin (15), @RealCandaceO (13), @alon_mizrahi (12), and @s_m_marandi (11).

The Iranian regime dominated Dugin’s content, consistently framed as a heroic civilization standing against the US-Israeli machine — the “Katechon,” in his theological vocabulary, the force holding back globalism as Antichrist. By early March Dugin was amplifying Alex Jones’s eulogy for MAGA, Joe Rogan’s bewilderment, Joe Kent’s resignation letter. His own post (quote-tweeting Jack Posobiec) called Trump the “ante-Christ.”

The through-line connecting all of it — Iran as hero, Trump as traitor, Tucker as heir — is the same thesis Dugin has been writing books about for thirty years, now made operational. What is new is the operational specificity. He’s not just philosophizing. He is picking sides, naming names, and telling his global audience which Americans to bet on.

The data doesn’t tell you what Tucker Carlson intends. But it tells you exactly what Alexander Dugin is hoping for.

Note: An initial version of this article had some inaccurate data (darn AI!). It has since been corrected. My apologies!

Key Findings:

• Candace Owens mentions Israel in 65% of her episodes, making it the #2 substantive topic on her show (behind Media/Fake News). Ben Shapiro mentions it in 61% of his.

• Tucker Carlson, Owens, and Shapiro all have similar Israel mention rates (62% vs. 65% vs. 61%), yet Shapiro produces five episodes per week, roughly double the output of the other hosts analyzed in this dataset. On a per-episode basis, Shapiro talks about Israel less than both Owens and Carlson.

• On Owens’ show, Israel gets about 71% more airtime than talk of President Trump. On Shapiro’s show, Trump gets 3.7x more airtime than Israel.

• On Megyn Kelly’s show, Israel is the 3rd most-discussed topic by word count.

If you spend any time in right-wing media discourse, you’ve heard the charge: Ben Shapiro is “Israel First.” It’s become a reflexive shorthand, a way to dismiss his commentary, question his loyalties, and cast him as an outlier among conservative voices. And Shapiro isn’t the only target. Plenty of other American commentators who dare to stand up for Israel get hit with the same label, whether it’s Mark Levin, Josh Hammer, or the good folks at the Babylon Bee.

But what if the data doesn’t support the premise?

Using Claude AI, I analyzed the full transcripts of five major conservative-adjacent podcasts from January 2025 through March 2026: Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Joe Rogan, and Megyn Kelly. I tracked how frequently each show discusses Israel, how many words are devoted to it, and where it ranks among all topics covered. The results challenge the conventional narrative.

Share

The Head-to-Head Numbers

Here’s how often Israel comes up across all five shows, measured by the percentage of episodes that mention Israel at least once:

Read that again. Candace Owens mentions Israel in 65% of her episodes. Tucker Carlson mentions it in 62%. Shapiro? 61%. All three are within just a few percentage points of each other.

The Frequency Factor

There’s a detail that makes the gap even wider. Ben Shapiro publishes five episodes per week. Tucker, Candace, and Rogan publish far fewer.

That means Shapiro’s 390 episodes over this period dwarf the others’ output. When you look at raw episode count, yes, Shapiro mentioned Israel in 237 episodes. But Candace mentioned it in 146 episodes out of just 224. On a per-episode basis, Owens talks about Israel at a somewhat higher rate.

Put simply, if Shapiro published at Candace’s frequency, his Israel mentions would scale down to roughly 136 episodes — fewer than Owens, and comparable to Tucker.

Words Spoken Tell an Even Sharper Story

Episode mentions only tell you whether a topic came up at all. Word count reveals how much airtime it actually gets. The table below shows total words each host devoted to Israel across the full period, alongside their Trump word count for context. The “Israel as % of Trump” column is the key number. It tells you how much of each show’s political oxygen goes to Israel relative to its most-discussed political figure.

Shapiro devotes the most raw words to Israel, but again, he produces nearly twice as many episodes as anyone else. Adjust for output volume and his per-episode Israel word count falls well below both Tucker and Candace.

Subscribe now

The ratio is where the story really lives. On Shapiro’s show, Trump gets 3.7x more airtime than Israel. Israel is a secondary topic in a show that is overwhelmingly about domestic politics. On Candace’s show, Israel gets about 71% more airtime than Trump — it is the show’s center of gravity. On Tucker’s show, Israel and Trump are essentially tied for the top spot.

If the “Israel First” label belongs to anyone based on editorial emphasis, the transcripts point elsewhere.

What Each Host Actually Prioritizes

The topic rankings paint a revealing picture of each show’s editorial identity.

• Candace Owens. Israel is the #2 topic on her show by episode count (behind Media/Fake News), and the #1 topic by word count — dominating in transcript volume. From October 2025 through January 2026, virtually all of her transcribed episodes mentioned Israel. Her coverage is heavily critical, featuring interviews with Norman Finkelstein and Bassem Youssef, and episodes with titles referencing “The United States of Israel” and “World War Bibi.”

• Tucker Carlson. Israel is his #2 topic by word volume, nearly matching discussion of Trump. His coverage accelerated sharply in early 2026, driven by confrontations with Ambassador Mike Huckabee and criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

• Ben Shapiro. Israel ranks only as the 8th most frequently discussed topic on his show. His Israel coverage is highly event-driven, spiking around the June 2025 Israel-Iran war and the February–March 2026 U.S. strikes on Iran. Outside active military conflicts, Israel coverage falls off sharply, dropping to as low as 32% of episodes in December 2025. Put simply, when there is no major war involving Israel, Shapiro talks about other things.

• Joe Rogan. Israel ranks as the 13th most discussed topic on his show, coming up in about half the episodes.

• Megyn Kelly. Israel ranks as only the 18th most frequently discussed topic by episode count, but the 3rd largest by total words spoken, with coverage almost entirely concentrated in the March 2026 Iran war period.

The Point Isn’t Who’s Right About Israel

This analysis is not about the substance of anyone’s Israel commentary. It is about how shamelessly dishonest the “Israel First” charge has become. The label, applied obsessively to Shapiro and to other pro-Israel voices on the right, completely inverts reality.

Candace Owens devotes more of her show to Israel than any other substantive topic by word count. Tucker Carlson brings it up at virtually the same episode rate as Shapiro and nearly matches his total word count while producing less than half as many episodes. Even Megyn Kelly, who almost nobody thinks of as central to this discourse, ranks Israel as her No. 3 topic by total words spoken.

Shapiro talks about Israel. Fine. So do the rest of them. The difference is that only one side gets branded with a sneering loyalty smear, while the people who spend equal or greater amounts of time obsessing over Israel are treated as truth-tellers. The transcripts make clear that “Israel First” is not a data-driven critique. It is a polemical weapon for unserious people, amplified by grifters who count on nobody checking the numbers.

The numbers are what they are. And they point in a very different direction than the charge suggests.

Methodology: Full episode transcripts from January 2025 through March 2026 were analyzed using Claude AI. Topic mentions were tracked by keyword matching across transcript chunks. Some months have incomplete transcript data for certain shows, as noted in the source document.

Buckle up, I’ve got some shocking news: Iran lied.

I know. Give yourself a moment to take it in.

Of course, anyone with a functioning prefrontal cortex and even a passing relationship with reality already knows the Islamic Republic lies about everything. But the anti-American demoralization campaign has been so relentless that plenty of people have ended up talking as though Iran should be taken at its word, while Israel and the United States should be treated as the habitual deceivers.

So let’s walk through the latest lie.

Iran’s Latest Lie

For years, the Iranian regime wanted the world to believe its missile program stopped at under 2,000 kilometers (1242 miles). In late February, Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said exactly that, insisting Tehran had intentionally capped its range. "We are not developing long range missiles. We have limited range to below 2,000 kilometers intentionally," he said. "We don’t want it to be a global threat. We only have [the missiles] to defend ourselves. Our missiles build deterrence."

Then over the weekend, Iran fired two intermediate-range ballistic missiles toward Diego Garcia, a joint U.S.-British base roughly 2,500 miles (approx. 4,000 kilometers) from Iran. According to the Wall Street Journal, one missile failed mid-flight, while a U.S. warship fired an SM-3 interceptor at the other. It’s still unclear whether the intercept succeeded.

This matters in the most immediate military sense. A regime that can reach Diego Garcia can threaten a far wider map of American bases, troops, and infrastructure than it admitted. It also means Europe should stop pretending geography offers some magical protection from the rest of the world. Berlin is about 2,175 miles from Tehran, Paris is about 2,610, and London is about 2,734. After a launch toward Diego Garcia, Berlin is plainly inside the demonstrated envelope, and Paris and London suddenly look a lot less theoretical.

Iran Unintentionally Justifies Operation Epic Fury

Now that Tehran has been caught lying about missile range, world governments and wayward podcasters alike need to stop treating its other strategic assurances as gospel. The same regime that lied about the reach of its ballistic missiles still wants the world to pretend its nuclear ambitions are harmless. And crazy as it sounds, some influential commentators are still eager to indulge the fiction. (Here’s looking at you, Tucker.)

This development, by itself, justifies President Trump’s decision to launch Operation Epic Fury. Recall that one of the operation’s stated objectives was destroying Iran’s ballistic missile capacity. That objective doesn’t need much explanation after this weekend. Iran’s missile program was already dangerous. Now we know its real reach was far greater than advertised. That alone is enough to treat it as a strategic threat that had to be hit.

Subscribe now

On March 5, Qatar’s Interior Ministry announced, via the state-run Qatar News Agency, that it had arrested 194 people of various nationalities for filming and circulating videos, as well as publishing what it called “misleading information and rumours that incite public opinion.” The statement said authorities had already taken the “necessary legal and administrative measures” and warned the public to rely exclusively on official sources for information about ongoing developments.

That language was not accidental. It closely tracks Article 136 bis of Qatar’s Penal Code, a 2020 amendment that criminalizes broadcasting or publishing “rumors,” “false or malicious news,” or “sensational propaganda” whenever authorities say it was intended to harm national interests, incite public opinion, or disturb public or social order. The offense carries up to five years in prison and a 100,000 Qatari riyal fine.

But Article 136 is only part of the system. Qatar’s 2014 Cybercrime Law separately punishes publishing “false news” online that threatens public order or state security, and even criminalizes content deemed to violate “social values or principles.” Qatar did not need to invent a pretext for this crackdown. It already had the laws in place.

And yet, almost nobody has said a word. No urgent statements. No international outrage. No meaningful pressure. Qatar can arrest 194 people for speech, call it “inciting public opinion,” and the world just shrugs. That silence is precisely what makes this kind of repression possible in the first place.

March 9 Update:

Qatar’s crackdown has already escalated further. Just days after authorities announced the arrest of 194 people for allegedly spreading “misleading information” and “inciting public opinion,” the Interior Ministry said on March 9 that the number had risen to 313.

Earlier this week, Qatar announced that it had arrested 10 IRGC members for allegedly planning attacks on its territory.

But that headline should not be mistaken for proof that Qatar and the IRGC are natural enemies. Many are understandably reluctant to criticize Qatar right now, given that it is formally aligned with Israel and the United States in Operation Epic Fury. Still, the record shows that Qatar spent years cultivating a close relationship with the Islamic Republic’s terror arm and, in key moments, helped strengthen it. This was not merely a matter of diplomatic niceties or vague gestures of goodwill. It manifested in concrete, documented military cooperation and direct financial facilitation.

Share

The Israeli government has long alleged that Qatar was funding the IRGC. And even if you’re skeptical of Israeli claims, the allegation was serious enough that it triggered a U.S. State Department inquiry, per the Washington Examiner (the conclusion of the department’s inquiry is unclear).

Moreover, on two separate occasions, Qatar hosted the IRGC at DIMDEX, its major naval defense expo in Doha held under state auspices. In 2022, Reuters noted IRGC commanders were openly present at the exhibition, displaying missile models and mingling at the event. Two years later, United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) documented that sanctioned Iranian entities, including IRGC-linked officials, were again involved around DIMDEX in 2024, warning that Qatar continued to provide a platform alongside Western defense firms.

Then there’s the older, even more explicit military engagement.

Start with the late-2010 IRGC naval visit to Doha. According to the IRGC-linked Fars News, it conducted direct military engagement with Qatar as part of efforts to expand defense cooperation between the two countries. In one instance, the IRGC dispatched a fleet of warships — including three rocket-launcher frigates and two logistical vessels — to Qatar following the participation of Qatari military commanders in the IRGC’s Payambar-e Azam (Great Messenger) regional military exercises in the Persian Gulf. IRGC Navy officials stated that the deployment was intended to strengthen military coordination and facilitate exchanges between Iranian and Qatari naval units.

That wasn’t an isolated photo op. A report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) diplomatic compilation captures the broader episode, describing an IRGC naval task force arriving in Doha and being formally received, with the visit framed as a meaningful step in bilateral military ties. The same CSIS report also records the operational detail behind it. IRGC commander Ali Reza Tangsiri described the deployment as a “naval observatory mission,” involving three missile-equipped boats and two support vessels, with plans for Iranian personnel to visit Qatari military centers during the trip. The Iranian news site Fararu also wrote about this naval visit. Here’s how Army Recognition covered it:

Qatar’s side was not shy about where this was heading. Qatar’s armed forces chief Hamad bin Ali al-Attiyah told the IRGC Navy delegation that Qatar was ready to hold joint military exercises with Iran. Similarly, the IRGC’s Nasseri stated that “The Islamic Republic is fully prepared for the implementation of defense cooperation agreements, and hosting and dispatching military delegations.” The Tehran Times also covered these statements.

And it wasn’t only about handshakes and drills. The Arab Weekly reports that former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Qatar paid a ransom to secure the release of IRGC fighters captured in Syria in 2012, which is exactly the kind of behind-the-scenes enabling that never shows up in Doha’s self-flattering headlines.

So yes, arresting IRGC operatives is better than not arresting them.

But the next time you hear about Qatar thwarting the IRGC — or the next time you hear about the IRGC’s latest act of violence — remember that one of the terror group’s chief enablers has been the state of Qatar.

Qatar wants the West to see it as a responsible, “moderate” mediator. Al Jazeera wants skeptics to believe the network has toned down its most inflammatory (i.e. terror-loving) instincts and matured into something closer to a conventional global broadcaster.

But it can never maintain the facade for long.

According to the official website for the 17th Al Jazeera Forum, taking place February 7 to 9, 2026 in Doha, the conference’s headline theme is “The Palestinian Cause and the Regional Balance of Power in the Context of an Emerging Multipolar World.”

On its face, that sounds like the usual nauseating, sanctimonious, academia-infused soirée one might expect from Doha. But look at the actual lineup, and the mask slips.

Share

Iran’s Foreign Minister Honored With Keynote Speech

Abbas Araghchi, the foreign minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran, is listed as one of the keynote speakers.

This matters because Iran is not a neutral “regional stakeholder.” It is a regime currently facing global scrutiny over the scale of its crackdown on mass protests. Multiple reports and opposition-linked monitoring groups claim that as many as 43,000 people may have been murdered overall, with roughly 30,000 killed in the span of just two days, figures that major outlets note are difficult to independently verify due to internet shutdowns and information controls.

So yes, Qatar is giving a keynote platform to Iran’s top diplomat while the world is still sorting through the scale of one of the bloodiest internal crackdowns in recent history.

Opening Session: Hamas’ Khaled Meshaal

The program lists Khaled Meshaal, described plainly as “Head of Hamas abroad,” as a featured speaker in the conference’s opening session, titled “Gaza after Two Years of War: The Resistance Project, Occupation Plans and Prospects for Internationalisation.” Meshaal is one of two frontrunners gunning (pun intended) for the leadership of the entire terrorist organization.

Other Senior Officials Speaking at the Forum

• Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, President of Somalia (keynote speaker)

• Burhanettin Duran, head of Türkiye’s Directorate of Communications (keynote speaker)

• Sheikh Nasser bin Faisal Al Thani, Director General of Al Jazeera Media Network and a member of Qatar’s ruling Al Thani royal family (keynote speaker)

• Rima Hassan, member of the European Parliament (keynote speaker)

• Saeed Khatibzadeh, Iran’s deputy foreign minister

It’s worth noting that the Al Jazeera Forum has a history of adding speakers as the event date approaches, suggesting the final lineup may expand further.

Addittional Speakers

On Day Two, Session Four, the program turns to “accountability and the rule of law” in a “multipolar world,” featuring Fatou Bensouda, the former prosecutor of the International Criminal Court.

Other speakers include Omar Makki, the Regional Legal Coordinator for the Middle East and North Africa at the International Committee of the Red Cross; Abdullah Al-Aryan, Professor of History at Georgetown University in Qatar; and Ghassan Abu Sittah, a prominent figure in conflict medicine and Gaza advocacy who also serves as the Rector of the University of Glasgow.

Not Hiding the Ball

Qatar can keep insisting it’s “moderate.” But the Al Jazeera Forum tells a simpler story. All we need to do is listen to them in their own words.

If you’re wondering what Qatar is selling here, don’t overthink it. The conference theme says “multipolar world.” The speaker list says “Khaybar khaybar, ya yahud.”

Qatar’s annual Doha Forum will take place on December 6–7, and its newly released agenda shows a speaker lineup and session slate heavily focused on Israel and Gaza. Nearly half of all scheduled panels contain direct references to Israeli “crimes” in Gaza and Iran, and ALL of them align with Qatari and Iranian talking points. Among the speakers are Qatar’s Prime Minister, Iranian officials, and a cavalcade of anti-American actors.

None of that is surprising — this is Doha, the capital of the Muslim Brotherhood, after all.

Share

What’s (only slightly) more surprising is that two high-profile American attendees are Neil Patel, the CEO of the Tucker Carlson Network, and Omeed Malik, the network’s earliest financial backer and founder of 1789 Capital. While Malik is listed as the founder of 1789 Capital, Patel is listed in his official capacity as head of Carlson’s media operation, a notable choice for a conference funded and hosted by the Qatari government.

The forum will also host Javad Zarif, Iran’s former foreign minister and one of the regime’s most prominent propagandists on the global stage. Another pro-Iran mainstay on the program is Trita Parsi, founder of the National Iranian American Council and a leading advocate for Tehran’s interests in Washington. As Tablet Magazine previously reported, internal emails and documents showed Parsi and NIAC coordinating with Iranian regime officials, including arranging meetings between members of Congress and Iran’s ambassador to the U.N.

A separate Iranian-diaspora watchdog report detailed NIAC’s long record of advocacy aligned with Tehran’s goals, including dissident testimony describing the group as a de-facto PR arm for the regime. The report also notes that a federal judge sanctioned Parsi and NIAC for withholding evidence during their failed defamation lawsuit.

Also gracing the stage will be Wael al-Dahdouh, the head of Al Jazeera’s Gaza bureau who is also an alleged member of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist organization.

Across the two-day schedule, themes related to Israel, Gaza, and Iran dominate the agenda. Major global issues such as Russia, China, energy markets, and economic development appear far less frequently. Topics that do appear tend to be framed around the Middle East, and highlight Qatar’s supposedly “well-intentioned diplomatic” efforts.

The conference sessions are exactly what you’d expect. One panel, titled “The Gaza Reckoning: Reassessing Global Responsibilities and Pathways to Peace,” says it will examine the war through the lens of global accountability. Another, “Iran and the Changing Regional Security Environment,” falsely claims Israel initiated the 12-Day-War with Iran, when in reality, Israel was simply responding to over a year of Iranian missle attacks on its territory. A third session, “Reclaiming Agency in International Media,” says it will focus on Gaza and the media’s role in shaping narratives surrounding the conflict.

Speaking of media, the forum’s media partners include only two Western outlets: CNN and Foreign Policy. CNN’s involvement has drawn scrutiny before. As the Washington Free Beacon reported, the network recently established an office in Doha, with Qatar footing the bill.

Qatar markets the Doha Forum as a platform for diplomacy, dialogue, and global cooperation. The 2025 program suggests a clear effort to shape international discourse around the Gaza war, Iranian interests, and Qatar’s regional positioning.

…….So why the hell are Tucker Carlson’s business partners there?

And exhale.

The collective breath of relief across Israel is almost impossible to describe. After 738 days of torment, it’s finally October 8.

The overwhelming joy that our hostages are now free. The anxiety of bloodthirsty terrorists released back to our doorstep as part of the ceasefire deal. The immeasurable gratitude to President Trump, who defied all conventional wisdom to show the world the true greatness of America. And just a hint of vindication — that our war, our just war, yielded the results we once thought we could only dream of.

For two years, since even before the IDF entered Gaza in late October 2023, we were accused of committing genocide. We were told we sought to annihilate innocent women and children, painted as Nazis by smug commentators and corrupt UN officials who demanded we simply surrender to the Hamas death cult.

Their accusations gave way to sanctions and arrest warrants for our elected leaders; to Israelis being excluded from international events; to Jews being pogrom’ed on the streets of Europe; and to Iranian missiles striking the heart of our cities.

The trauma has been relentless. Yet we did not waver. How could we, when our hostages endured horrors we could hardly imagine? So we remained resolute, clinging to the sliver of hope that maybe, just maybe, we would see them dance again. That hope and resilience makes us who we are.

That doesn’t mean we aren’t filled with righteous anger. For two long years, the international media told us our fight was futile. That if we only allowed Palestinians to declare a state, Hamas would kindly free the hostages out of the goodness of their hearts. That we should stop fighting evil and instead appease it. They were wrong.

And that doesn’t mean we aren’t worried. Amid our euphoria, we are already bracing for what may come next. Many of the 1,900 Palestinian detainees and security prisoners just released into Gaza and the West Bank have Israeli blood on their hands. They will harm us again if given the chance. Hamas, despite assurances from its patrons in Qatar that it seeks a “new chapter” with Israel, has already begun reconstituting its forces and blatantly violating the ceasefire by withholding the bodies of hostages they murdered, who were guaranteed would be released. As we speak, Hamas is executing Palestinians in Gaza en masse, and there is no clear mechanism to demilitarize them. We know this moment is a respite, not an end. We know we will again have to take up arms against those who seek our destruction.

To those abroad insisting this deal could have happened sooner: it could not have. Only Israel’s courageous campaign in Gaza, including the dismantling of Hamas’s military machine, the destruction of its tunnel empire, and the elimination of its leadership, created the leverage for this agreement. Only Trump’s diplomacy, combined with Israel’s battlefield victories, made it possible. Peace is not conjured by handshakes and lofty words on paper; it is compelled by strength.

This is not the end of our war for survival; it’s a brief breath between battles. Israelis understand that freedom and safety are not permanent conditions. They are achievements that must be won again and again.

But we won’t be thinking about that tonight.

Tonight, as we sit with our families around the dinner table, we marvel at what was just accomplished. We pray for the return of every last soldier, and for the souls whom we could not save in time.

Tonight, on the two-year anniversary of the massacre that shook our world and made us hold our breath — we’re finally dancing again.

On October 2nd, I published an article detailing Qatar’s vast foreign influence network in the U.S., including its army of foreign agents operating at the regime’s behest. The piece ruffled some feathers, such as Qatar’s Deputy Ambassador to the U.S., Hamad Al-Mufta, who lashed out against it. When Former Spokesman for the State of Israel Eylon Levy’s post about the article went viral, Al-Mufta responded:

“All fara [Foreign Agents Registration Act] registered and very transparent And more to come to fight the disinformation and elevate the Qatari USA relationships as this relationships is the the one that creat peace and economic prosperity in the USA. [sic]”

It sounds nice, but it’s a blatant lie. Qatar’s foreign influence activity is not “all registered and transparent.” In September 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice ordered AJ+, a Washington-based subsidiary of Al Jazeera, to register as a foreign agent under FARA. Trump’s DOJ laid out in black and white how AJ+ is controlled from top to bottom by the Qatari government. Five years later, and AJ+ has simply refused to register — in complete violation of American law.

So I asked Al-Mufta directly: What about AJ+? Why hasn’t it complied with the DOJ order? He refused to answer. I asked again. Silence. I tweeted at him a third time. Nothing. The deputy ambassador of Qatar — confronted with hard facts — simply vanished.

That’s the pattern, you see. Doha’s officials lie in public, and when called out, they retreat.

And here’s a revealing coda. After I exposed Al-Mufta’s dishonesty, an anonymous user on X pointed out that the only account he personally pays to subscribe to is none other than Jackson Hinkle — arguably the biggest professional liar on the platform. Which means Qatar’s deputy ambassador is literally funding Hinkle, at least in the form of that subscription.

So the next time you see Qatari diplomats brag about their “transparency,” remember this: they bankroll propagandists, they ignore U.S. law, and when exposed, they hide.

Key Takeaways

• Qatar has 31 FARA registrants in the U.S., with 22 based in Washington, D.C. — a 71% concentration, the highest of any major lobbying country.

• Since 2016, Qatar has spent nearly $250M on 88 lobbying and PR firms, logging 627 in-person political meetings from 2021–25 — more than any other country.

• Its total U.S. footprint is $93.7B, including $30B in business investments, $29B in weapons purchases, $20B in energy projects, $8B for Al Udeid Air Base, and $6.3B in higher education.

• Qatar is the single largest foreign funder of U.S. universities at $6.3 billion. The D.C.-based Georgetown has recieved $1 billion since 2005.

• Qatari influence also permeates D.C. media and real estate: Al Jazeera holds 136 congressional press credentials (vs. 82 for the New York Times), and Qatari Diar owns the 2-million-sq-ft CityCenterDC project under Sharia rules.

Yet Another Ginned up Controversy Over Israel

Over the last few days, my feed has been flooded with people suddenly discovering FARA, the Foreign Agents Registration Act, and using it as a cudgel against Israel. Overnight, everyone who couldn’t even tell you what FARA stood for became an expert, righteously insisting that Israel’s “nefarious foreign influence” had finally been exposed.

The latest controversy started with the Soros-funded, Iran-linked Quincy Institute, which claimed influencers were being paid $7,000 per post by an Israeli lobby group. But if you actually read the filings, the real figure is $450–$750 per post — a perfectly normal mid-tier influencer rate, as data wiz Mark Zlochin (a must-follow) pointed out. Some on the Tucker Carlson wing of the GOP, like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, argued that any influencer being paid by a foreign lobbyist should register under FARA (a point I actually agree with).

The narrative didn’t stop there. Almost immediately, fringe antisemites on the bowels of X began pumping out the false figure as “proof” that D.C. is under Israel’s thumb.

Let’s be clear: every single country tries to influence the United States, and they all use influencers to do it. Without exception. Is it a smart strategy? Meh, I’m not convinced. Personally, I think the risks outweigh the rewards, and I haven’t seen data proving otherwise. Qatar certainly seems to think so though, given how the Wall Street Journal revealed in 2018 that Qatar had targeted 250 influencers to try and sway Trump’s policy in their preferred direction.

That brings us to the main point. The real story isn’t whether countries do this — it’s about which countries many on both sides of the aisle are ignoring.

Because while the spotlight is being forced onto Israel, the real story is Qatar, whose sprawling foreign influence apparatus dwarfs everyone else’s. Yet curiously, few of these sudden FARA “experts” have said a word about the regime, even after President Trump signed an executive order effectively granting the Gulf terror state NATO-like security guarantees from the U.S. — guarantees that could, in theory, drag American citizens into war on behalf of Doha.

Qatar’s FARA Footprint

Here’s the basic landscape. As of today, there are 788 active FARA registrants in the United States (access full FARA database here). From what I could see, Japan has the most active registrants overall at 53, but proportionally Qatar has the highest concentration of FARA agents in Washington, D.C. and its surrounding area among countries with a significant lobbying presence.

• Israel: 16 total, with 8 based in D.C. (50%)

• UAE: 27 total, 11 in D.C. (40.7%)

• Saudi Arabia: 38 total, 15 in D.C. (39.5%)

• Japan: 53 total, about 30 in D.C. (56.6%)

• Qatar: 31 total, 22 in D.C. (71.0%)

Moreover, the data also shows that since Trump’s first election in 2016, Qatar has spent nearly $250 million on 88 FARA-registered lobbying and PR firms. From 2021–2025 alone, Qatar’s agents reported 627 in-person meetings with U.S. political contacts — more than any other country in the world.

Critics love to claim that Israel “buys” Washington. The numbers tell a different story. According to OpenSecrets, here are the top spenders on FARA registerants since 2016. As you can see, China has spent the most, at about $460 million, Qatar $258 million, and Israel $194. So when you hear talking points about “Israel buying influence,” remember: the country actually flooding D.C. with cash and lobbyists is Qatar.

These lobbiysts and PR firms were well worth the investment. Earlier this year, the Washington Examiner’s Robert Schmad exposed that since Trump’s 2024 win, Qatar has ramped up efforts to sway conservative media, with over half its foreign-agent outreach now targeting right-leaning outlets (up from ~10% before). This includes paying $180k per month to a firm that secured a Tucker Carlson interview for the Qatari prime minister and pitching favorable stories to Fox, the New York Post, and others — some of which ran soon after.

Somewhat relatedly, in March 2024, reports emerged that a Qatari royal invested about $50 million in pro-Trump network Newsmax, leading senior newsroom staff to pressure reporters to soften coverage of Qatar. The investment, structured via a Cayman Islands corporate entity, represented a significant minority stake.

The $93.7 Billion Footprint

Lobbying is just the beginning. According to The Free Press, Qatar’s overall U.S. footprint adds up to $93.7 billion, broken down like this:

• Business investments: $30 billion

• Weapons purchases: $29 billion

• Energy plants and export facilities: $20 billion

• Al Udeid Air Base: $8 billion

• Lobbying and PR: $250 million

• Colleges and universities: $6.3 billion

That last figure is astonishing. Qatar is the single largest foreign funder of U.S. colleges and universities in history. The next closest? China and Hong Kong at $5.6 billion. Germany follows with $4.2 billion, England with $4.1 billion, and Saudi Arabia/Canada at $3.7 billion.

Qatar blows them all away.

Six major U.S. universities still operate campuses in Qatar: Virginia Commonwealth, Cornell, Texas A&M, Carnegie Mellon, Georgetown, and Northwestern (though Texas A&M is withdrawing in a couple of years).

• Georgetown University (main campus in Washington, D.C.) has received over $1 billion.

• Northwestern University has taken around $800 million.

• Texas A&M once had $700 million, until their contract was canceled last year.

D.C. Capture

Qatar’s influence isn’t abstract. It’s quite literally physically all over Washington.

• Al Jazeera’s subsidiary AJ+, based in D.C., was ordered by the DOJ in 2020 to register as a foreign agent. Five years later, it still hasn’t — and the DOJ has failed (or refused?) to enforce its own order.

• Speaking of Al Jazeera, the Qatari government-run outlet also has unrivaled access on Capitol Hill. Congressman Jack Bergman revealed in 2024 that Al Jazeera and its subsidiaries hold 136 congressional press credentials. The New York Times only has 82.

• The DOJ itself is now headed by Pam Bondi, who was once a registered foreign agent of Qatar and helped polish Doha’s image ahead of the 2022 World Cup.

• And let’s not forget real estate: the sprawling CityCenterDC development — 2 million square feet across five city blocks — is majority owned by Qatari Diar, which allegedly required the project to adhere to Sharia finance principles (equity investment only, no interest) and imposing restrictions on banks, bars, and certain businesses.

The Bottom Line

The numbers don’t lie. Qatar is:

• Spending far more than Israel on lobbying.

• Pumping billions into U.S. universities.

• Enjoying extraordinary media access.

• Embedding itself directly into Washington real estate.

Yet when the FARA conversation comes up, the outrage is laser-focused on Israel — where the actual numbers don’t even come close.

And before all the naysayers start whining about “AIPAC operating as an unregistered foreign agent” or some such nonsense, let me remind you: Washington is full of organizations advocating for strong U.S. ties with Greece (HALC), Armenia (ANCA), Ireland (Irish Caucus networks), India (USINPAC), and Taiwan (FAPA). Yet the outrage always seems saved just for AIPAC.

Any honest conversation about foreign influence in Washington has to start with the country that’s been pouring billions into U.S. politics, universities, media, and even the capital city itself. That country is Qatar.

There is something profoundly sinister happening right now in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination. It is not just that we’ve lost a husband, a father, a leader, a friend. It’s that his very memory is now being put on trial. And if you pay attention to the online currents, on both the left and the right, you’ll see the attempt unfolding in real time to rewrite who Charlie Kirk was, what he believed, and what he fought for.

You see it in the whispers and the outright lies. They say Charlie was “waking up” to the supposed evils of Israel, that he was beginning to notice “the Jews this” and “the Jews that.” They try to twist him into the image of a man who was slowly inching toward their conspiratorial worldview.

Charlie’s record could not be clearer. He said, plainly, that antisemitism is from the pit of hell. He called it demonic. He warned that it rots your brain. Again and again, he defended Israel’s right to defend itself against Hamas. He spoke with joy about one of his greatest callings as a Christian: to advocate for Israel and to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Jewish people. He pushed back against the conspiracism festering in parts of the right. He knew the danger of it. He called it out.

And now some of the very people he was warning against — people like Candace Owens and her ilk — are rushing in to claim him as their own. They are trying to fold him into the very movement he resisted, to tarnish his memory with their poison, to pretend that he was quietly “coming around” to their side.

When do people truly die? Yes, there is the physical death, the awful finality we are all grieving now. But there is also the second death — the death that comes when a person’s memory is extinguished, when their legacy is distorted beyond recognition, when the truth of their life is buried under lies. That second death is what these fiends are attempting to inflict on Charlie Kirk right now.

He hasn’t even been laid to rest. His wife and children are still processing the unbearable reality of losing him. And yet here are the grifters and the ideologues, already at work, trying to kill him again. Not in flesh, but in spirit.

It is one of the most vile things I have ever witnessed. And it cannot go unchallenged.

Charlie Kirk was an extraordinary friend to Israel and to the Jewish people. He was consistent. He was clear. He was courageous. And for anyone to twist his legacy into something it never was, to drag his name into the muck of antisemitic conspiracism, is not only obscene. It is demonic.

And it is our responsibility to stop it.

Subscribe now

The New York Times editorial board just weighed in with a demand that Israel allow international media into Gaza.

Now, one might argue that Israel should let some of the press waltz into Gaza and galavant with the Hamas terrorists they seem to admire so much. But regardless of whether Israel decides to alter its policy, the New York Times should not be granted entry. Given the systematic, deliberate campaign the paper has waged since October 7th to harm Israel, its demands should be dismissed. It’s high time for the Times to face the consequences of its actions.

Anyways, let’s walk through just a few examples of the Times’ profound abdication of journalistic integrity, shall we?

The Starving Gaza Baby Hoax

In July 2025, the Times splashed across its front page a photo of an emaciated Gazan child—whose condition was caused not by wartime starvation, but by pre-existing cerebral palsy. The image was presented as proof of famine caused by Israel. The correction—such as it was—was buried days later, long after the damage was done. This was no isolated lapse. It was the latest expression of a decades-long pattern of skewed, selective, and at times outright false reporting about Israel.

A Pattern of Negligent, Inaccurate Journalism

A 2024 peer-reviewed study by Eytan Gilboa and Lilac Sigan, published in Israel Affairs, examined the Times’s coverage of the Israel–Hamas war from October 7, 2023, to June 7, 2024. In that period, the paper admitted to 72 errors—48 of them about Israel. Not a single one was caught internally; all were flagged by outside critics. Corrections were late, vague, and often misleading.

The most infamous case was the Al-Ahli Hospital explosion. On October 17, 2023, the Times led with: “Israeli airstrike killed 500 at a Gaza hospital, Palestinians say.” In one sentence were five major falsehoods: it wasn’t an Israeli airstrike but a misfired Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket; it hit a parking lot, not the hospital; the death toll was 50–100, not 500; the source was Hamas’s “Ministry of Health,” not some generic “Palestinians.” The headline helped ignite riots across the Middle East and torpedoed a Biden-brokered summit in Amman. Israel immediately released audio of PIJ operatives admitting responsibility. The Times buried Israel’s denial under the original headline and left it there for hours. When the “correction” finally came, it was a minor note about the parking lot damage—no mention of PIJ, Hamas, or the actual casualty count. Only after President Biden privately blasted the headline as “irresponsible” did the paper issue an editor’s note admitting it had “relied too heavily” on Hamas claims.

The Gilboa–Sigan study documents that this wasn’t a one-time lapse. Throughout the war, the Times repeated Gaza Health Ministry casualty figures almost daily without noting the ministry is run by Hamas, without distinguishing combatants from civilians, and without acknowledging analyses that showed those figures were statistically impossible. Hamas itself later admitted that a third of its reported casualties were drawn from “media sources” or “unclear individuals.” The Times ignored that until the UN repeated it, and even then portrayed it as a mere change in sourcing. In 27 opinion pieces about Gaza casualties, the paper never once questioned Hamas’s numbers, according to Gilboa and Sigan’s study.

The same pattern held in its treatment of Israeli leaders’ words. On October 10, 2023, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant told soldiers, “Gaza will not return to what it was before. There will be no Hamas. We will eliminate it all.” The Times removed the reference to Hamas, turning a statement about eradicating a terror group into one about erasing Gaza. Prime Minister Netanyahu quoted a biblical passage about surprise attacks on the innocent; the Times misattributed it to a completely different verse with an entirely different meaning. Both misquotes were repeated in op-eds, influencing South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice, before being partially corrected—weeks later in some cases, not at all in others.

And then there’s the question of who the Times trusts to tell the story from Gaza. The paper rehired Soliman Hijjy, a freelancer it had previously fired for antisemitic posts praising Adolf Hitler, and used his work in 13 articles, including the false hospital-blast report. It employed Yousef Masoud, accused of embedding with Hamas on October 7, whose photo metadata showed it was taken just 11 minutes after the attack began—contradicting the Times’s claim of a 90-minute delay.

The Times also uses the work of Samar Abu Elouf, a Gaza-based freelancer who, in the early 2010s, taught “journalism” courses for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization.

In December 2023, the Times published an op-ed by Yahya Sarraj, the Hamas-appointed mayor of Gaza City. The piece repeated Hamas casualty claims and destruction figures without challenge. The backlash was immediate and bipartisan, with U.S. leaders blasting the Times for giving a propaganda platform to a Hamas official.

Moreover, a Tablet Magazine analysis found that the number of Times articles pairing “Israel” and “genocide” during the war was more than nine times higher than the paper’s peak mentions of genocide in Rwanda and nearly six times higher than during Darfur. This isn’t the cautious use of a grave legal term—it’s hyperbolic repetition, designed to imprint a frame in the public mind.

Israel’s restrictions on press access to Gaza are hardly unusual. From Afghanistan to Iraq and many other conflicts, governments fighting terror groups have routinely barred or tightly controlled journalists in active combat zones. Israel’s policy is not an outlier — it is consistent with global counter-terror operations.

But even if one argues that international media should be allowed in, the New York Times has no claim to that privilege. By spreading hoaxes, platforming Hamas officials, intentionally spreading misinformation, maliciously editing quotes from Israeli officials, and employing terror-linked, Hitler-loving “journalists,” it has forfeited the credibility required to cover Gaza responsibly.

Screw em.

On Friday, the Qatari state-run network Al Jazeera announced two new correspondents to replace Anas al-Sharif and Mohammed Qreiqea, who were killed last week in an Israeli airstrike: Shadi Shamiya and Nour Abu Rukba.

Anas, by every available piece of evidence and according to the Israel Defense Forces, was a Hamas terrorist. Qreiqea, too, appeared tied to the group. It should therefore surprise no one that Shadi Shamiya is cut from the same cloth.

Before joining Al Jazeera, he served as head of the correspondents’ department at Al-Aqsa TV, Hamas’ flagship propaganda channel, which has been sanctioned by the U.S. government. In other words, a card-carrying Hamas operative.

And while Shadi keeps his own social media presence relatively sanitized, his wife, Wafaa Abdel Karim, is less discreet. She openly flaunts her admiration for Hamas and jihad. On Facebook, she posted “O Allah, grant victory to our fighters and protect them, O Allah. Destroy the Jews and their supporters, O Lord of the worlds.” She’s posted Hamas propaganda straight from the Qassam Brigades on multiple occasions. (See here, here, and here, for example.)

Publicly available info about Nour appears limited at this point. I’ve identified an X account and two Instagram pages seemingly associated with her (here and here), but none contain any noteworthy material aside from the usual anti-Israel propaganda. Will update if I find anything interesting.

Subscribe now

What I witnessed in Gaza during my brief embed with the Israel Defense Forces last weekend wasn’t a lack of aid—it was a refusal to deliver it.

Just a few kilometers inside the strip, pallets of flour, bottled water, diapers, medical supplies, and jars of baby food—provided by the World Food Programme, UNICEF, and donor countries—sat untouched while people just miles away searched for their next meal. In total, nearly 600 trucks’ worth of aid were sitting idle. Enough to feed 1,000,000 people for nearly two weeks, or 500,000 for almost a month.

These provisions weren’t being blocked by Israel. They had already crossed into Gaza with full coordination from the Israel Defense Forces, a small portion of the over 1.86 million tons of humanitarian aid Israel has facilitated into Gaza since October 7, an unprecedented amount delivered by a country to a population governed by its wartime enemy.

The holdup wasn’t logistics, security, or weather.

They were stalled because the United Nations refused to deliver them. Why? Because the supreme aim for the UN isn’t helping Gazans. It’s maintaining control over the humanitarian system that keeps it relevant, of the machinery that funds and justifies its existence.

The UN and its vast ecosystem of aid agencies have spent decades building a sprawling, unaccountable empire in Gaza. At the heart of this network is UNRWA, the agency that has run Gaza’s aid-state since Hamas violently wrested control of the strip from the Palestinian Authority in 2007.

To a casual observer, UNRWA looks like the most well-intentioned humanitarian agency. It bills itself as “humanitarian, neutral, and impartial.” In fact, it is deeply tied into Hamas.The organization has formally partnered with Hamas in administering Gaza’s food, schools and hospitals over the past two decades.

But the UNRWA-Hamas relationship goes far beyond logistics and administration. UNRWA has employed Hamas operatives, including some who took part in the October 7 massacre. In August 2024, the agency fired nine staffers over possible involvement in the attack, a move Israel condemned as grossly inadequate given that it had provided evidence linking more than 100 UNRWA employees to Hamas. In addition, Israeli authorities published a comprehensive report in April 2025 which it claims shows that 1,462 of UNRWA’s 12,521 employees in Gaza are tied to terror groups.

UNRWA facilities across Gaza have repeatedly been found to host terrorist infrastructure. According to UN Watch, this includes testimony from former Israeli hostages who said they were held by Hamas inside UNRWA buildings; weapons caches discovered in UNRWA clinics; and Hamas compounds uncovered inside UNRWA schools and beneath its Gaza City headquarters. These violations date back to at least 2014, when the UN itself admitted that Hamas had fired rockets from inside UNRWA schools.

Who pays for all this? Western taxpayers—primarily Americans and Europeans—via billions in annual government funding. The Congressional Research Service writes that US funding to UNRWA since 1950 amounts to $7.3 billion. In 2023 alone, the Biden Administration’s funding accounted for nearly 30% of the agency’s contributions from donors. In early 2024, the Biden administration froze funding to UNRWA after Israeli intelligence presented sufficiently credible evidence of UNRWA staff involvement in October 7.

The Trump Administration is taking this effort one step further. According to Fox News, the State Department told Congress that "the Administration has determined UNRWA is irredeemably compromised and now seeks its full dismantlement."

The UN’s failures in Gaza have been common knowledge for decades. But they were ignored by policymakers, diplomats, and media institutions who chose to look the other way, because acknowledging them would have meant taking on an entrenched international bureaucracy—and risking being accused of undermining Palestinian welfare.

October 7 made ignoring all of this untenable. And not just because UNRWA employees participated in the massacre. It became abundantly clear that Hamas was actively depriving Gazans of aid, and doing so in concert with the UN.

More recently, the U.S. and Israel backed an alternative: the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a new initiative designed to bypass Hamas and restore integrity to aid distribution in Gaza. Contrary to some reporting, GHF claims it was never intended to replace the UN or other traditional aid organizations.

As GHF put it in a July 29 statement: “A common misconception about GHF is that we were established to replace the UN and traditional aid organizations. That is not the case. GHF’s work complements, not supplants, those organizations.” The group also noted that it had “secured a commitment from Israel to allow aid into Gaza under the existing mechanisms, including the UN” before launching operations. But even as a supplemental model, GHF posed a direct threat to the UN’s longstanding monopoly on humanitarian operations in Gaza—and that alone was enough to provoke backlash.

When GHF launched in May with a commitment to deliver millions of meals to Gazans through secure, Hamas-free distribution, it wasn’t welcomed. It was attacked.

On July 5, two GHF aid workers were injured when a grenade was thrown at their vehicle while they were en route to a distribution site. GHF stated that the attack was carried out by Hamas-affiliated operatives seeking to disrupt the delivery of humanitarian aid.

Then, in a major incident on July 16, 20 Palestinians were killed at a GHF-run distribution site in Khan Younis, 19 of whom were trampled and one stabbed. “We have credible reason to believe that elements within the crowd – armed and affiliated with Hamas – deliberately fomented the unrest,” GHF said in a statement.

Hamas has worked to undermine the foundation in other ways as well, including by placing bounties on GHF personnel. Its Health Ministry has repeatedly issued dramatic and unverified accusations that both the IDF and GHF personnel are opening fire on civilians during the daily, often chaotic, aid distributions. The Ministry claims that more than 1,000 Palestinians have been killed at or near GHF distribution sites. The IDF, in response, says it has only fired warning shots when individuals approached soldiers or aid convoys. GHF has stated that its armed contractors have used only non-lethal measures, such as pepper spray or warning shots fired in the air, to prevent dangerous crowd surges.

What this narrative ignores is that the other distribution processes employed this far are just as – if not more – chaotic and violent. Just this week, for example, the Daily Wire released a video showing swarms of Gazans overrunning multiple trucks belonging to the UN, while the IDF released footage of armed Hamas operatives looting an aid truck. “Contrary to Hamas’s false claims that the individuals in the video are security personnel,” the IDF said, “they are in fact Hamas terrorists who arrived to seize the aid from Gaza’s residents.”

But the UN, ever the willing megaphone, amplifies the Health Ministry’s narrative, with a complicit media giving them generous airtime.

Even more counterproductively, the IDF claimed this past week that the UN has insisted it will only distribute aid if the process is secured by Gaza’s “Blue Police,” a sanitized way of describing Gaza’s Hamas-run police force. Back in November 2024, a UN spokesperson stated that their workers would become “an even greater target” if surrounded by “armed soldiers from one of the two parties in this conflict.”

Why then would the UN oppose another group handing out food and rely on Hamas’ police force to secure distribution, even after repeatedly accusing the terror group of stealing aid? Why would it echo Hamas’ unproven claims of “aid massacres,” despite the IDF and GHF denying them, and rail against GHF for doing the very thing the UN is supposed to do?

Because GHF’s success is existentially threatening to the UN’s model. If GHF works, the entire paradigm collapses. No more “working through partners” who happen to be terrorists. No more junkets and photo ops for UN officials who get feted around the world for overseeing human misery. And most importantly, no more Hamas exploiting aid to fill its coffers and maintain domination.

In 2024 alone, Hamas made over $500 million from the aid racket, according to both Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer and US House Speaker Mike Johnson—by extorting civilians, skimming off the top, and using food as a tool for recruitment. Johnson has said this revenue accounts for half of Hamas’s annual budget.

According to a U.S. official quoted in the Wall Street Journal, Hamas made shutting down the GHF the second item on its cease-fire negotiation list—which tells you everything you need to know about how UN aid fuels Hamas and how successful the initiative has truly been. Another official added that GHF has “caused Hamas more fear than anything else has in the past two years.” That’s because GHF does what no UN body dares to do: deliver aid directly to civilians, cutting out the Hamas middleman.

The UN’s own data reveals just how broken the system has become: between May 19 and July 27, only 13 percent of all aid trucks that entered Gaza actually reached their intended destinations. The rest were intercepted or diverted inside Gaza.

While the UN’s system collapses under the weight of its own dysfunction, GHF distributes aid daily—and films it. Their videos show the (far from perfect) delivery of hundreds of thousands of aid packages per day, totalling nearly 100 million so far.

The humanitarian crisis in Gaza isn’t the narrow result of Israeli policy, but of the international system that treats Hamas like a partner and those trying to bypass Hamas like traitors. And while media outlets and the United Nations insist Israel is starving Gaza, it’s actually the UN that is failing to distribute aid. Not because of war. Not because of the siege. But because of pride, politics, and power.

The fight over aid in Gaza isn’t just about food. It’s about who controls the narrative— and who profits from it.

Following the Hamas attacks on October 7, 2023, and the ensuing war, Israel – which controls most access points to Gaza – has facilitated an unprecedented volume of humanitarian aid into the territory. According to the Israeli military liaison agency COGAT, as of July 21, 2025, 1,867,754 metric tons of aid had entered Gaza since the start of the war. Notably, 78.3% of this aid – approximately 1,463,000 tons – was food.

This volume equates to roughly 850 kg of aid per Gaza resident (based on a population of ~2.2 million) over the course of 21 months – or about 485 kg per person per year. Of that, food alone accounted for approximately 666 kg per person over 21 months – or about 381 kg per person per year.

Subscribe now

It is exceedingly rare in modern warfare – if it’s ever occurred at all – for a belligerent to coordinate and permit such a scale of aid into the territory of its active adversary. Most historical comparisons involve either third-party humanitarian corridors or efforts that were limited in scope, duration, or volume. By contrast, the Gaza case represents a sustained, large-scale aid operation during an ongoing conflict – coordinated by the belligerent itself.

Historical Cases Since World War II

• Berlin Airlift: Ally-to-ally (1948–49): The Allies delivered 2.3 million tons of supplies to 2.5 million West Berliners over 15 months – about 920 kg per person in total, or 736 kg per person per year. However, this was aid from allies to allies, not a belligerent aiding its enemy.

• Biafran Civil War: Third-party NGOs (1967–70), church-led NGOs delivered approximately 60,000 tons of aid over two years to around 2 million civilians—about 30 kg per person in total. The Nigerian government opposed and obstructed these efforts.

• Siege of Sarajevo: United Nations (April 1992–early 1996), UN airlifts delivered approximately 160,000 metric tons of supplies to around 350,000 residents, amounting to about 457 kg per person in total—or roughly 130 kg per person per year. Serb forces allowed some access but often impeded aid.

  Subscribe now

Precise per-capita tonnage figures for other conflicts are difficult to locate — fewer than a half-dozen cases offer the clear combination of known total aid weight, defined population, and duration. In most other humanitarian crises (Somalia, parts of Syria, Yemen, DR Congo, etc.), data is reported in programmatic or population-reached terms, without exact per‑kg per‑person annual averages.

Aid Per Capita: Gaza in Comparative Perspective

• Gaza: ~850 kg per person total (~485 kg/year)

• Berlin (Airlift): ~736 kg/year

• Sarajevo: ~130 kg/year

• Biafra: ~30 kg total over several years

Only the Berlin Airlift exceeds Gaza in raw per capita delivery – and that was a special Cold War case of aid to a friendly enclave. Gaza is unique in that such a large volume of aid was facilitated by the belligerent itself to its adversary in wartime.

In nearly all historical comparisons, either the aid was delivered by third-party actors, was severely obstructed by combatants, or occurred under ceasefire conditions. Gaza is unique in being a case of direct aid coordination by a belligerent to the territory of its active military foe.

Critics may argue that Israel’s role as a so-called “occupier” or allegations of war crimes somehow undermine the significance of its aid facilitation. These are serious accusations that deserve their own examination — and can be debated separately. But they do not negate the basic, quantifiable reality: whether one approves of the methods of distribution or not, Israel has coordinated the entry of more humanitarian aid, per capita, into enemy-held territory during wartime than any other country in modern history.

Conclusion

With nearly 1.87 million tons of aid delivered – 78.3% of it food – Gaza has received one of the largest and most sustained humanitarian flows in modern wartime history, especially considering that it was coordinated by an active combatant. The per capita delivery rate of ~485 kg/year is exceeded only by the Berlin Airlift and far surpasses every other known example in conflicts since World War II.

While humanitarian conditions inside Gaza remain dire and more aid is needed, the scale and intent of Israel’s coordination effort stand out as historically exceptional. Israel’s facilitation of humanitarian access into enemy territory – during ongoing conflict – is, by both historical and comparative standards, virtually without precedent.

When people talk about antisemitism in the American media, names like The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the AP usually come up first — and for good reason. But one outlet has largely escaped that scrutiny: Fox News.

Subscribe now

Fox has, in many ways, been a light in the darkness — pushing back against much of the mainstream media’s anti-Israel bias and actually promoting the truth. I’m genuinely grateful for that, and I know countless other Jews around the world are too.

But since October 7th — when Hamas slaughtered 1,200 Israelis and took 251 more hostage — I’ve made it one of my primary goals to expose every single journalist, editor, and producer in the mainstream media who holds virulently antisemitic views. That includes terrorists in Gaza masquerading as “media professionals” and journalists at The New York Times, CNN, The Washington Post, Al Jazeera, and more.

But for the first time this week, I was faced with a dilemma: whether to call out someone at an outlet I deeply admire.

In the end, the choice was easy.

Let me introduce you to Ian Jopson, a 17-year veteran of Fox News Digital.

Ian just got a big promotion.

According to Fox News Digital insiders, Ian’s first day as the Senior Editor of Homepage Visuals was July 01, 2025. The insiders say that he’s around three rungs below President & Editor-in-Chief Porter Berry in the outlet’s chain of command.

On his public Facebook and Instagram accounts, Ian has posted fanatical — and in some cases antisemitic — content that has no place at Fox News. I’m talking posts about Israel (which he refers to as “Isnotreal”), the so-called “rabid Zio lobby,” and reels calling for “death to the Israel Defense Forces.”

I could describe all of the posts, but I’d rather let them speak for themselves:

But Ian isn’t just anti-Israel and arguably antisemitic — he also seems to hold deeply anti-American views and sees the country as an oppressive regime rampant with racism and inequality.

He’s also posted pictures of Elon Musk and President Donald J. Trump dressed as Nazis.

In fact, it’s literally his Facebook cover photo:

During my research, I found out that Ian’s posts have previously raised eyebrows for their anti-conservative nature and for pushing transgender ideology.

How someone with views like this rose to become one of the top editors at Fox News Digital over the course of 17 years is beyond me. But at the very least, I think the public, in particular fans of Fox News, deserve some answers.

In the days following Tucker Carlson’s clash with Senator Ted Cruz over, among other things, AIPAC’s role in American politics, a curious wave of anti-AIPAC sentiment has swept across social media. A significant portion of it has centered on a now-deleted X account under the name “Jay Sullivan,” a self-described AIPAC lobbyist from Arkansas.

Subscribe now

Jay’s posts were cartoonishly provocative — often cloaked in faux pro-Israel or pro-Jewish language, but transparent in their true intent. Anyone not already steeped in antisemitic conspiracies could recognize the posts as grotesque exaggerations designed to paint Jews as cruel, tribalist villains. Examples of posts include calling on the FBI to investigate Americans who disagree with the idea that Jews are “God’s chosen people” and saying that antisemites should be set on fire. One particular post that drew substantial ire declared: “Jewish lives matter more than anyone’s.”

The backlash was swift. Antisemitic accounts piled on — see here, here, here and here, for example — replying with slurs and threats towards Jay and Jews in general. Additionally, for reasons unclear, Palestinian media decided to refer to Jay as a “U.S. senator.”

The account was eventually locked and deleted. Only one problem: Jay Sullivan doesn’t exist.

He’s a fabrication — a fake persona seemingly created by pro-Hamas, anti-Israel operatives to poison the discourse around AIPAC and inflame hatred toward Jews.

The Receipts

Based on the account’s bio, cover photo and profile picture alone, it’s easy to see that Jay is a complete fiction:

• “The Jay Show” and the Dynamic News Network he claimed to host it on don’t appear to exist anywhere online.

• No record exists of an AIPAC lobbyist out of Arkansas named Jay Sullivan.

• His listed employer, “Cyber Meta United States,” appears to be fake.

• He claimed to have co-founded “Mission Lane & Merik,” but no such business can be found.

• His profile photo is clearly AI-generated — as both AI detection tools and anybody with functioning eyeballs can attest.

A Trojan Horse Account

Even more revealing is what Jay actually posted before adopting the AIPAC persona. Archived posts show the account sharing pro-Hamas propaganda, defending Hamas, and excusing the October 7 massacre.

Jay has also amplified antisemites like Jake Shields, an MMA fighter turned Nazi-esque influencer, as well as Shahid Bolsen, an Islamist who murdered a man in the UAE and stuffed his corpse inside a suitcase. I kid you not.

It’s unclear exactly when “Jay” was pivoted from overt pro-Hamas rhetoric to posing as an over-the-top AIPAC loyalist. But the pivot itself reveals the deeper game: create a caricature of Jewish evil so grotesque that it justifies antisemitism in the eyes of the onlooker.

Manufactured Monsters

This incident underscores a broader trend. Since bigots can’t find actual Jews who fit the monstrous archetype they’ve constructed in their heads, they have no choice but to invent them. They create fake personas like Jay to serve as straw men for their hatred — characters so outrageous and morally bankrupt that they validate the bigot’s worldview.

Jay is likely part of a larger, coordinated disinformation effort. And the goal is clear: make Jews look inhuman, and make AIPAC the face of that inhumanity.